I Want To Teach The World To Sing

Music transcends all barriers between humankind. A good song will stay in your mind for hours, sometimes days on end. A great song takes you back right to the moment that you very first heard it. To most people, music is the medium in which emotion is expressed - hurt, sorrow, pain, joy, elation, and of course, love. Music, if you like, makes the world go round.

Many are still blissfully unaware of the amount of work that it takes just to make a song. A massive team is involved in the writing, composing, recording, and the post-production. It would be natural that this team would want at least some form of protection to prevent their music from being exploited.

Copyright protects creative works and enables composers, literary authors and other creators to be paid for their work. Copyright is the means by which those who create and own works (for example, music and lyrics) can control who makes use of each work and the circumstances in which it is used, to ensure that the integrity and value of the work is respected. Copyright protects original literary, dramatic, musical and artistic works, sound recordings, films, broadcasts and the typographical arrangement of a published edition. The legal framework for copyright is the Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988 (CDPA) as amended. (source) Every song comprises two copyright works: the music itself, a musical work; and the lyrics or words, a literary work. The work of musical arrangers and editors also benefits from copyright protection. If the work is subsequently recorded, the sound recording itself will have separate copyright protection. The producer of the recording will own the copyright in the sound recording. If the work is published in a printed edition, the typographical arrangement of that printed edition will be separately protected and the publisher of that edition will own the copyright. Under current EU laws, recorded musical performances are protected for a maximum of 50 years. This means that over a period of 50 years, performers receive remuneration for each time their work is played on the air. After 50 years, artists lose control over the use of their works and no longer receive this income. Composers already enjoy copyright protection for 70 years after their death.

In the age of Justin Bieber, where one becomes a worldwide sensation at the age of 16, 50 years of protection is clearly not sufficient. Justin for example, will lose the rights over his first song when he turns 66! Personally, I doubt anyone would want to use a Bieber song in 50 years but nowadays we can never be too sure. On the surface, this seems unfair as a composer is protected for life plus 70 years. Unless the said artist has written the song himself (let's face it, how many do?) then there will be a lot for him to worry about come 50 years when his copyright expires. For this reason, there is going to be quite a substantial reform in this area of the law.

The EU is expected to make changes to the copyright law which will find the copyright term extended from 50 years to 70 years – enabling veteran singers to receive royalties for their songs well into their retirement. It will be the culmination of a long-running campaign by record companies and artists, who have been campaigning for a change in copyright protection, with European musicians calling for parity with American performers, who enjoy cover for 95 years. The new ruling will benefit hundreds of artists including performers such as Cliff Richard, Tom Jones, Paul McCartney, Rodger Daltrey and Shirley Bassey and will come as a welcome reprieve for the music industry, which is struggling to cope with the growing popularity of free online music. (source)

Jools Holland OBE, the host of the BBC's Later show and famous jazz pianist, said: "It is fantastic news to hear that copyright term has been extended to 70 years. Artists put their hearts and souls into creating music and it is only fair that they are recompensed in line with the rest of Europe."

The way I see it, this move is going to make the record companies richer at the expense of consumers. It seems that this crusade to lengthen the period of protection is inspired, albeit in a small part, by the advent of illegal file sharers that distribute music files illegally over the internet. However, lengthening the period of protection means the cost of CDs or even digital tracks will rise, leaving the consumer to handle the harshness of the situation. This may lead to one thing: even more illegal file sharers.

Another argument that was brought up, was that paying musicians more money (as if they were not overpaid as it is) would be an incentive for creativity. I very highly doubt that! Let me give you an example: Mariah Carey. When she was just starting out as a singer, she had wonderful tracks that showcased her amazing vocal range but if you have had the misfortune of listening to her recent work, you can tell that the quality of her work has gone down and she is quite reliant on synthesisers and voice-tuning software. Being a big fan of indie music, I find that most of the times I can relate more to the songs they write. They are more real, the emotion is on my level and I know what they are singing about. There are only so many songs about 'riding in my Rolls (Royce)' or 'sipping on Moet' that I can relate to.

There is another thing that bothers me too. It was 'unfair' that performing musicians and record companies should receive fees for only fifty years whereas composers were entitled for their lives plus seventy years. Nobody however suggested that it was 'unfair' that they should receive fees for longer than the twenty years appropriate for the inventors of patented inventions or, probably a better analogy, designs, where the period is fifteen or twenty-five years. What makes an performing musician more deserving of copyright protection than say, a designer? Perhaps a topic for another time, then.

For further reading, check this out.